MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417106343 · doi:10.1108/mgrj-06-2010-0003

Teaching Writing in Canadian Middle-Grades Classrooms

2010· article· en· W4417106343 on OpenAlexaffabout
Shelley Stagg Peterson, Jill McClay, Kristin L. Main

Bibliographic record

VenueMiddle Grades Research Journal · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWriting and Handwriting Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCreative writingThe artsWriting assessmentLanguage artsWritten languagePeer assessmentTeaching methodBasic writing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article reports the results of interview research examining writing instruction and assessment practices in 216 Grades 4-8 classrooms across the 10 Canadian provinces and 2 (of 3) territories. Researchers found that participating teachers scheduled daily time for writing, either in language arts classes or through integrating writing throughout the curriculum. Teachers assigned creative writing most frequently and did not speak about writing for learning. Students talked to each other while writing and engaged in peer editing. Much of teachers’ feedback to students on their writing was verbal. Computers were used primarily to retype handwritten compositions to create polished copies.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.560
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.154
GPT teacher head0.429
Teacher spread0.275 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMiddle Grades Research JournalSame topicWriting and Handwriting EducationFrench-language works237,207